APHC010336932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1672/2025 Between: 1. MR G JANARDHANA RAO, (BC.CODE.5S860000), S/O LATE. RAMAPPADU, OCC. SBI-BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O. VILL .TULAGAM, HIRAMANDALAM-MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, A.P, PIN 532459. AND 70 ORS ...PETITIONER AND 1. MR DEVILAL MEHRA, Deputy General Manager (FI) State Bank of India Amaravati Local Head Office Gunfoundry, Hyderabad - 500001, Telangana. ...CONTEMNOR Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to pleased to summon the respondent/contemnor for willfully violating order dated. 06.10.2017 in W.P.No.33461 of 2017 and punish him as per law in the interest of Justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANGURU NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. 2 The court made the following ORDER: The contempt case has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the interim orders dated 06.10.2017, passed in W.P.No.33461 of 2017. 2. Apparently, the contempt case was instituted on 04.07.2025 and on 27.07.2025, the matter was adjourned at the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Again, when the case was listed on 30.01.2026, 05.02.2026 and 13.02.2026, there was no representation for the petitioner. However, when the matter was called on 20.02.2026, some other counsel represented the learned counsel for the petitioner and sought time for one week. 3. For the sake of comprehensive, the docket orders passed by this Court are extracted hereunder:- On 25.07.2025, the following order was passed: “At the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, post after three weeks.” On 30.01.2026, the following order was passed: “No representation for the petitioner. Post next week.” On 05.02.2026, the following order was passed: “On 30.01.2026, there was no representation for the petitioner. Today also, there was no representation for the petitioner. List next week under the caption ‘for dismissal’.” 3 On 13.02.2026, the following order was passed: “On 30.01.2026 as well as on 05.02.2026, this Court passed the following orders: “30.01.2026: No representation for the petitioner. Post next week. 05.02.2026: On 30.01.2026, there was no representation for the petitioner. Today also, there was no representation for the petitioner. List next week under the caption ‘for dismissal’.” Unfortunately, today also, there is no representation for the petitioner. However, in order to offer one more opportunity to the petitioner, list the matter next week under the very same caption i.e., dismissal.” On 20.02.2026, the following order was passed: “At the request made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, list the matter next week under the same caption i.e. ‘dismissal’.” 4. Today, even though the matter is listed under the caption for dismissal and called in the morning session, as well as in the afternoon session, none appeared for the petitioner. 5. From the above, it is crystal clear that in spite of the multiple opportunities granted to the petitioner, unfortunately, none turned up before the Court. The instant case is a classic example of petitions being filed without any genuine intent to pursue them. Neither the petitioner nor the advocate has shown any interest in prosecuting the matter, thereby impeding the course of administrative justice and contributing to the unnecessary accumulation of pending files. 4 6. The Registry also brought to the notice of this Court that on 23.01.2026 itself, the main writ petition No.33461 of 2017 was dismissed as withdrawn by giving liberty to the writ petitioners to work out their remedies in accordance with Law. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to close the matter with a liberty to the petitioners to seek their recourses in accordance with law only. 8. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 27.02.2026 GVK 5 148 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT CASE No.1672 of 2025 Date: 27.02.2026 GVK